Au'inca Door of Hope Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331012427
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Paris, TX, USA
Phone
9037857445
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Religion Related N.E.C.
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Reported finances

Revenue
$865,707
Expenses
$946,122
Assets
$451,208
Liabilities
$3,501

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT CAMPBELL (VICE-PRESIDENT/EXEC DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RAMONA HILL (PRES/EXEC DIRECTOR): $12,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Organization delivered humanitarian aid relief program services to numerous Native American tribal communities in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Texas. All programs encourage involvement with Native Americans from the Reservations we serve.

What it reported doing in 2025

During their visits in August and December of 2025 the Organization provided for 5 semi-truck loads of Christmas Toys, foods, clothing, and household goods valued at 478,223. providing for some 2,263 families, children and individuals on the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the Cibecue Community of Arizona. Poverty, unemployment, and isolation affects the vast majority of families living on the reservations. During the holiday season the Organization worked with tribal leaders and members and provided large foodboxes with much needed food items and toys for the children. These holiday programs bring much needed smiles to the children and their parents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 99
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: $238.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.3%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $938K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.